It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI: Arm Boston Police With Assault Rifles

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 


The police may be that group NOW. They are just waiting for their order 66 for most of the day. The reason they've been such d1cks lately is because they've been waiting for 3 years now and the order still hasn't come.

I would probably support taking away the weapons they already have before I'd feel good with them carry around M-16s. Take their cars too.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Yeah, the standard 9mm, or old school .38 is no match for what the local gangster is carrying.
If I'm going to protect/be protected, I want a bigger gun than the bad guy and hope the "bigger stick" theory stays stable enough to never have to fire a shot.

Sad that it comes to that, but it is what it is.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 



Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by BrainPower
 


Yea that's the problem. Police firearms training is minimal in my area and range time very uncommon! [unless said officer belongs to a private range] I don't like the idea of people already minimally trained getting a hold of something bigger!


Sorry that's the case where you live. Where I live, the local LEO use the range at my sportsman's club every week gratis. Every Thursday is blocked off for them, and they are welcome at any other time also.

And that is common practice in this region.

BOT: It's better for the Boston PD to be prepared for such an incident than to be caught empty-handed. And although Boston is a very low target for terrorists (imo), and Mumbles Menino as he is affectionately known is wrong to oppose this, BPD should follow the Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Yeah I can't really argue against the idea that the police should be at least as well armed as the populace - then again doesn't MA have an "assault rifle" ban?

I'm frankly kind of surprised they don't have rifles already, though.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I think this is a 4 part problem .

first , assault wep ban never included active police officer , or military in any juritiction ... but that is counter to 2nd amendment concept .

second , the assault weps will give them cause to train .
I have see the training they will get and what they get now , and its worth less in tactical honesty . your comon afgan vet would easily be able to out train , this is a good way to spend stimulus money and nothing more.

third , the problem is not giving the cops semi auto weps , the problem is what happens to those weps when they are known to exsist in a world where others like them are bann'd .
tacticaly , they become bait for a trap .... a place to attack , a trigger that says bad things will soon come .

fourth , ban civilian ownership of guns , give guns to the gov.
ban civilian stuff , give the stuff to gov ...
see a pattern ...

the actual thing being done is not important...
what is important... they need to know... take one step forward... we will make you take 3 steps back .

and that is not happening.... civilians are taking the three steps back for each step forward...

we need to tell congress ....
shut the money off , or get out of the way and we will elect some one who will .



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
It's obvious that they are afraid of RPG attacks.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by In nothing we trust
 


Haha, that looks like and old "A-Team" pic. haha.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Don't they have SWAT teams that are armed to hilts?

They need regular street cops handing out traffic tickets and tazing people to have heavy weapons?

Perhaps in the gang units defending LA, Chicago, NY from gang violence.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The already carry shottis. Its not like they wave it around when not needed. They exchange it for a semi assault weapon and use it the same way they would the shoti, as a secondary.

The way street gangs are armed now it would make sense. They don't need to use the terroist attack excuse.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate



Bamford said he believes more officers should have access to the guns in the event Boston becomes the target of a terrorist attack like the one that killed 166 people in Mumbai, India in November.


Anyone else think this could be an indication of an upcoming false flag operation? Am I reading more into this than is actually there,



No offense, but in looking at your latest threads, you typically do.




or are my suspicions legitimate? Is the FBI just being overzealous, or is there more to this story?

TA

www.thebostonchannel.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I wouldn't call it overzealous. I'd call it an appropriate response.

Assault rifles are everywhere, if the LEOs aren't armed accordingly, how do you expect to have any impact against those who have them?

Do you believe that only the citizenry has a right to be armed in that fashion?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 




No offense, but in looking at your latest threads, you typically do.


Better to be prepared, than to be caught off guard...

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips

If that price also includes being labeled 'paranoid', so be it.

on topic:

Of course the police should be well armed. That's not in dispute. I'm just wondering what exactly the FBI meant by saying this arsenal upgrade would be in case of a 'terrorist' incident.


TA





[edit on 21-8-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


Its easier to get this to happen if they say the weapons would be used in case of terroist attacks rather then saying the gangs are getting the better of us and we need to be better armed.

They are playing on fears rather then just saying the cops need to be better prepared for gang violence.

A question.

Assuming the city pays for the cops weaopns. If they say its for terroist would they get federal funding to pay for the upgrade?

That could be another reason for using the terroist excuse.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I know for a fact that the Amesbury, MA police force has AR-15's in their car-racks.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I own a AR-15 as well as a M-9 myself. Why shouldn't the local LEOs have access to the same or better equipment that I, as a law-abiding citizen, should have access to?

Makes perfect sense to me...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join